quote: A curriculum designed to describe the history of the science related to cosmic evolution needs to be fair enough to emphasis that Genesis was the lone and sole claimant for a Big Bang in days when men puzzled over the possibility of a Static Universe that had always existed.
You have an odd idea of fairness. Perhaps we should rather mention the fact that Genesis starts with the primordial ocean, typical of Middle Eastern creation myths.
quote: And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.
Which is hardly surprising.
quote: It also should be emphasized that Gen 1:9 noted correctly that once "all the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place" called the Panthalassic Ocean, "and the dry land appeared," which was called Pangea.
You mean INcorrectly. There was dry land before there were large bodies of water.
quote: It also is scientifically true that no visible light was present at the moment of the big bang beginning, but there was a delay of 400 million years, until the universe cooled down. Then the First Cause said let there be light.
Science says nothing about a First Cause acting AFTER the beginning of our universe to create light, in fact it says that there was no need for that at all. Never mind that your interpretation starts with the accretion disk that became the Earth already existing, which is much later!
quote: Whatever criticism the course might raise against the speculatins of the Bible writers, in all fairness, these few correct "hypothesis" did turn out to be true.
Honesty compels me to point out that three out of four have NOT turned out to be true.
quote: The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.
Then we're agreed that you're part of the problem.
quote: Genesis clearly can and ought be read with the choice to understand it as corresponding with what we now know, rather than deciding to misinterpret the literal statements just to choose to make if seem false and non-factual.
In other words, since Genesis 1 is badly wrong, it is necessary to misrepresent it to pretend that it is right.
But even your misrepresentations obviously fail. Any knowledgable person would know that the Earth did NOT exist, even as an accretion disk, until many billions of years after the "Cosmic Dark Age".
quote: You can protest and even argue that the christians who are not theistic evolutioists say different, but an honest, fair minded read would have to admit this is a valid correspondence when examined the way written above... not that many intellectual oriented people care about honesty, of course.
Any honest and informed person can see that your "interpretation" is grossly strained, lacking support from the text, and far from scientifically accurate - and they will say so.
quote: You seem educated enough on the subject to realize that at the moment of the Big Bang all mater appeared at once, immediately, but is a state which was void in geometric and solid form
I wouldn't call a quark-gluon plasma "solid", and that's about as close as you'll get to normal matter close to the Big Bang.
quote: This changed as even the sun and the stars were intially accreation disks themselves, slowly cooling and taking the spherical form.
I think that there is a huge difference between the existence - in some form - of the matter that would eventually form the accretion disk which became the Earth, and the accretion disk itself existing.
quote: But you do seem to recognize the uncanny correctness of a 400 million year cooling down era where darkness existed just as the Bible reports.
You'd have to be outright insane to believe that. Even if the end of the Cosmic Dark Age represented a real creation of light it wouldn't be similar enough to deserve to be called a coincidence. But it doesn't.
quote: These first 5 verse enumerate ideas that were not even suspect in 1362BC, and the Big Bang beginning was a shot in the dark by the Biboe writers who would have lost this whole debate for me had they said what was the politically correct point of view until 1940, that the cosmos has always been there.
No, they're just another creation myth with no relationship to modern science. That's why you have to add so much to what they say.
You are just repeating your position which is simply to oppose me.
Alternatively your phrasing really is confusing.
quote: That I told you the Plasma state of the Cosmos contained the elementary matter right from the first split second which would solidify, and though then void of geometric shape, take form from the formlessness and become recognizable as stars and at some point, the Earth.
In other words you were completely wrong to talk about the accretion disk which no more existed at that point than the modern planet did.
quote: That you can and do decide to ignore this valid understanding of what the first two verses in genesis means is simply your choice, with the intention of disparaging the bible, instead of granting my description is more valid than your own interpretations.
Given that your "valid understanding" contradicts itself, rather demonstrates that you are simply trying to fit your limited understanding of science to the text.
quote: In other words, you CAN and DO insist that your way of explaining the two verses serves your argument, while subjectively attempting to disqualify any other interpretation of "In the beginning"...
I haven't commented on the meaning of the phrase "in the beginning". However, obviously a correct understanding of the verses cannot be reached by trying to force-fit them to a preferred meaning.
quote: Lame and intellectually dishonst, IMO.
I think that you mean "intellectually honest", since that, at least is not an accusation that could be more justifiably thrown your way.
quote: 1&2) At least you atheistic bible bashers are now reduced to minutia and trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis.
Apparently telling the truth about your methods is considered "trivial subjective and personal criticism of Genesis". I have to point out the fact that neither you, nor your methodology are in Genesis.
quote: If some one insists on reading Genesis to say the beginning was not The beginning, and that it does not refer to the sudden Big Bang of the Universe, temporally occurring 13.5 Billion years ago, fine.
Well that would be you in insisting that "in the beginning" did NOT refer to a particular time.
And of course, the fact that Genesis claims that the ocean existed at the beginning would rather negate any idea that it was intended to refer to any modern understanding of the existence of our universe. It would, however, work perfectly well in the time and place that Genesis 1 was written. Now these considerations are VALID considerations when interpreting Genesis 1 honestly. Your method of simply trying to find vague correspondences so that you can claim that the Bible is correct is both invalid and dishonest.